Friday, April 27, 2007

Democratic Debate Made No Sense

From left: Mike Gravel, former U.S. senator from Alaska, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Ct., former Sen. John Edwards of South Carolina., Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson., and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio made the observation of the night when he said that it made no sense to oppose the war and then turn around and vote for more money to fund it.

Out of the eight presidential hopefuls that spent the initial moments of their first Democratic presidential primary debate blaming President Bush for the war in Iraq four candidates; Sen. Christopher Dodd, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Edwards all voted to give President Bush authority to invade Iraq four years ago.

And all Democrats House and Senate apparently except for Rep. Kucinich voted yesterday on a war funding bill that will be sent to the President early next week. Kucinich’s point strikes at the heart of Democratic hypocrisy. Yes indeed, what sense does it make to fund the war and at the same time say that you are against it?

Such is the case with Democrats who live in the nuanced world of conflicting positions and politics. Sens. Obama, Clinton, Biden and Dodd all cast votes yesterday in favor of funding the war in Iraq yet they all blame the President for the war.

Remember four of the candidates voted initially to invade Iraq and four of them voted to fund the continuation of the war yesterday yet Democrats feel perfectly comfortable criticizing the President while disassociating themselves from any responsibility for their decision to give authority to invade Iraq or their votes yesterday to continue to fund the war.

Inconsistent, makes no sense? Well of course this kind of “I voted for the war before I voted against it,” is a Democrat political essential. This is a formula that Democrats have invented, John Kerry clumsily attempt to invoke it in his Presidential bid of four year ago. When pressed on the fact that he voted against funding equipment for the troops. In Kerry’s famous nuanced way of putting things he said, “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

One has to wonder, why such blatant inconsistencies are so acceptable to Democrat partisans when any Republican who’d had made similar statements before the press would be dragged before a Senate Judiciary hearing.

But alas if you are a Democrat you may always change your mind, change your position and you may always repent.

For instance, you need a $400 dollar hair cut? And you want to pay for it from campaign donations?

Well I won’t advise it if you are a Republican but if you happen to be a Democrat and if your name happens to be John Edwards why go ahead and get that trim, no problem. If you are ever asked about it just say, "That was a mistake, which we remedied," and all is forgiven. See how easily Democrat sycophants look pass partisan wrong doing?

Or did you ever notice how Democrats are so impressed with the labyrinthine phrasing of a clintonesque statement, one that starts in one directing but is so convoluted with legalese that when completed it is in absolute contradiction of its original intent? Slippery answers, words, phases and clauses refined and redefined to the point of surreal absurdity an example would be some of the candidates’ answers to a question about the Supreme Court.

The candidates were asked about the Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on partial birth abortions, many of them claimed that they would not impose a litmus test on their own nominees to the high court. But contradictorily, some of them stressed their support for abortion rights, and said their appointees to the bench would reflect that. So much for not imposing a litmus test and very clintonesque I must say.

In another example Dennis Kucinich challenged Barack Obama at one point for once having said all options were on the table with respect to Iran. "You're setting the stage for another war," the Ohio lawmaker said.

In Obama’s best clintonesque he shot back, "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran," Obama replied. "But have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region."

Thus Obama was able to leave all options on the table with only the impression that he had addressed Kucinich’s concern.

If this debate portends to be what’s in store for the American people, if the Democrats win, we will not have learned anything in the last eight years of partisan attempts to make George Bush into a liar. We could be headed back to being governed by a Democrat party that made lying depend on what the meaning of is, is!

And that friend just doesn’t make any sense!

No comments:

Post a Comment